TEAM-ADA Archives

Team Ada: Ada Programming Language Advocacy


Options: Use Classic View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Condense Mail Headers

Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: "Team Ada: Ada Advocacy Issues (83 & 95)" <[log in to unmask]>
From: Jacob Sparre Andersen <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2001 12:57:46 +0200
In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Reply-To: Jacob Sparre Andersen <[log in to unmask]>
Parts/Attachments: TEXT/PLAIN (22 lines)

> My topic here is, however, to know what Ada programmers
> and language lawyers would think "For-Loop Iteration for
> Real Type" for AdaXX.

I think for loops on floating point types is a mistake,
since the step size isn't constant.

For fixed point types, where the step size can be constant,
I consider it interesting (and something I might want to
use). There is still a problem due to the possible
difference between the requested and the actual resolution
of fixed point types. Most readers of such code would
probably expect the step size to be equal to the requested
resolution and not to the somewhat more arbitrary actual
resolution of the fixed point type.

Warning: Dates in calendars are closer than they appear.